This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Roger Davies (talk | contribs) at 01:09, 5 February 2010 (→Proposed principles: post). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
Revision as of 01:09, 5 February 2010 by Roger Davies (talk | contribs) (→Proposed principles: post)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)|
Main case page (Talk) — Evidence (Talk) — Workshop (Talk) — Proposed decision (Talk) Case clerks: Ryan Postlethwaite (Talk) & AlexandrDmitri (Talk) Drafting arbitrators: Roger Davies (Talk) & Kirill Lokshin (Talk) |
| Misplaced Pages Arbitration |
|---|
 |
| Open proceedings |
| Active sanctions |
| Arbitration Committee |
Audit
|
| Track related changes |
After considering /Evidence and discussing proposals with other Arbitrators, parties and others at /Workshop, Arbitrators may place proposals which are ready for voting here. Arbitrators should vote for or against each point or abstain. Only items that receive a majority "support" vote will be passed. Conditional votes for or against and abstentions should be explained by the Arbitrator before or after his/her time-stamped signature. For example, an Arbitrator can state that she/he would only favor a particular remedy based on whether or not another remedy/remedies were passed. Only Arbitrators or Clerks should edit this page; non-Arbitrators may comment on the talk page.
For this case there are 14 active arbitrators, not counting 1 recused. 8 support or oppose votes are a majority.
| Abstentions | Support votes needed for majority |
|---|---|
| 0 | 8 |
| 1–2 | 7 |
| 3–4 | 6 |
If observing editors notice any discrepancies between the arbitrators' tallies and the final decision or the #Implementation notes, you should post to the Clerk talk page. Similarly, arbitrators may request clerk assistance via the same method.
Proposed motions
Arbitrators may place proposed motions affecting the case in this section for voting. Typical motions might be to close or dismiss a case without a full decision (a reason should normally be given), or to add an additional party (although this can also be done without a formal motion as long as the new party is on notice of the case). Suggestions by the parties or other non-arbitrators for motions or other requests should be placed on the /Workshop page for consideration and discussion.
Motions have the same majority for passage as the final decision.
Template
1) {text of proposed motion}
- Support:
- Oppose:
- Abstain:
Proposed temporary injunctions
A temporary injunction is a directive from the Arbitration Committee that parties to the case, or other editors notified of the injunction, do or refrain from doing something while the case is pending.
Four net "support" votes needed to pass (each "oppose" vote subtracts a "support")
24 hours from the first vote is normally the fastest an injunction will be imposed.
Template
1) {text of proposed orders}
- Support:
- Oppose:
- Abstain:
Proposed final decision
Proposed principles
Administrator conduct
1) Administrators are trusted members of the community; they are expected to lead by example and to follow Misplaced Pages policies. Occasional mistakes are entirely compatible with this as administrators are not expected to be perfect though they are expected to learn from experience and from justified criticisms of their actions. However, consistently or egregiously poor judgment or sustained disruption of Misplaced Pages is incompatible with this trusted role and administrators who repeatedly engage in inappropriate activity may be desysopped by the Arbitration Committee.
- Support:
- Oppose:
- Abstain:
Return of access levels
2) Users who give up their administrator (or other) privileges and later request the return of those privileges may have them restored upon request, provided they did not give them up under circumstances of controversy. Users who give up privileges under controversial circumstances must go through the normal channels (such as a Request for adminship) to regain them. Determining whether an administrator resigned under controversial circumstances is, in most cases, in the discretion of the bureaucrats. However, an administrator who requests desysopping while an arbitration case or a request for arbitration is pending against him or her will be deemed to have left under circumstances of controversy, unless the Arbitration Committee decides otherwise, for purposes of applying this rule. (RfAr:MZMcBride April 2009)
- Support:
- Oppose:
- Abstain:
Recidivism
3) Users who have been sanctioned for improper conduct are expected to avoid repeating it should they continue to participate in the project. Failure to do so may lead to the imposition of increasingly severe sanctions.
- Support:
- Oppose:
- Abstain:
Disruption to prove a point
4) The point guideline says "if you disagree with a proposal, practice, or policy in Misplaced Pages, disruptively applying it is probably the least effective way of discrediting it – and such behavior may get you blocked".
- Support:
- Oppose:
- Abstain:
Vandalism
5) Policy defines Vandalism as … " any addition, removal, or change of content made in a deliberate attempt to compromise the integrity of Misplaced Pages". It further states: "Vandalism cannot and will not be tolerated".
- Support:
- Oppose:
- Abstain:
Serious accusations
6) Due to the risk of harming current or past contributors in real life, users must be careful when accusing other editors of potentially damaging behavior. For example, claims of stalking, sexual harassment, or racism could harm an editor's job prospects or personal life, especially when usernames are closely linked to an individual's real name. These types of comments are absolutely never acceptable without indisputable evidence. "Serious accusations require serious evidence" such as "diffs and links presented on wiki." In the context of Arbitration, such serious allegations should not be posted publicly in any case. Participates should instead use email or off-wiki communication when discussing the with...the Arbitration Committee.
- Support:
- Oppose:
- Abstain:
Derogatory remarks
7) Policy states: "Do not make personal attacks anywhere in Misplaced Pages….. Derogatory comments about another contributor may be removed by any editor. Repeated or egregious personal attacks may lead to blocks".
- Support:
- Oppose:
- Abstain:
Template
8) {text of proposed principle}
- Support:
- Oppose:
- Abstain:
Template
9) {text of proposed principle}
- Support:
- Oppose:
- Abstain:
Template
10) {text of proposed principle}
- Support:
- Oppose:
- Abstain:
Proposed findings of fact
Template
1) {text of proposed finding of fact}
- Support:
- Oppose:
- Abstain:
Template
2) {text of proposed finding of fact}
- Support:
- Oppose:
- Abstain:
Template
3) {text of proposed finding of fact}
- Support:
- Oppose:
- Abstain:
Template
4) {text of proposed finding of fact}
- Support:
- Oppose:
- Abstain:
Template
5) {text of proposed finding of fact}
- Support:
- Oppose:
- Abstain:
Template
6) {text of proposed finding of fact}
- Support:
- Oppose:
- Abstain:
Template
7) {text of proposed finding of fact}
- Support:
- Oppose:
- Abstain:
Template
8) {text of proposed finding of fact}
- Support:
- Oppose:
- Abstain:
Template
9) {text of proposed finding of fact}
- Support:
- Oppose:
- Abstain:
Template
10) {text of proposed finding of fact}
- Support:
- Oppose:
- Abstain:
Template
11) {text of proposed finding of fact}
- Support:
- Oppose:
- Abstain:
Proposed remedies
Note: All remedies that refer to a period of time, for example to a ban of X months or a revert parole of Y months, are to run concurrently unless otherwise stated.
Template
1) {text of proposed remedy}
- Support:
- Oppose:
- Abstain:
Template
2) {text of proposed remedy}
- Support:
- Oppose:
- Abstain:
Template
3) {text of proposed remedy}
- Support:
- Oppose:
- Abstain:
Template
4) {text of proposed remedy}
- Support:
- Oppose:
- Abstain:
Template
5) {text of proposed remedy}
- Support:
- Oppose:
- Abstain:
Template
6) {text of proposed remedy}
- Support:
- Oppose:
- Abstain:
Template
7) {text of proposed remedy}
- Support:
- Oppose:
- Abstain:
Template
8) {text of proposed remedy}
- Support:
- Oppose:
- Abstain:
Template
9) {text of proposed remedy}
- Support:
- Oppose:
- Abstain:
Template
10) {text of proposed remedy}
- Support:
- Oppose:
- Abstain:
Template
11) {text of proposed remedy}
- Support:
- Oppose:
- Abstain:
Template
12) {text of proposed remedy}
- Support:
- Oppose:
- Abstain:
Template
13) {text of proposed remedy}
- Support:
- Oppose:
- Abstain:
Proposed enforcement
Template
1) {text of proposed enforcement}
- Support:
- Oppose:
- Abstain:
Template
1) {text of proposed enforcement}
- Support:
- Oppose:
- Abstain:
Template
2) {text of proposed enforcement}
- Support:
- Oppose:
- Abstain:
Template
3) {text of proposed enforcement}
- Support:
- Oppose:
- Abstain:
Template
4) {text of proposed enforcement}
- Support:
- Oppose:
- Abstain:
Discussion by Arbitrators
General
Motion to close
Implementation notes
Clerks and Arbitrators should use this section to clarify their understanding of the final decision--at a minimum, a list of items that have passed. Additionally, a list of which remedies are conditional on others (for instance a ban that should only be implemented if a mentorship should fail), and so on. Arbitrators should not pass the motion until they are satisfied with the implementation notes.
- Proposals which pass
- {Passing principles}
- {Passing findings}
- {Passing remedies}
- {Passing enforcement provisions}
- Proposals which do not pass
- {Passing principles}
- {Passing findings}
- {Passing remedies}
- {Passing enforcement provisions}
Vote
Important: Please ask the case clerk to author the implementation notes before initiating a motion to close, so that the final decision is clear.
Four net "support" votes needed to close case (each "oppose" vote subtracts a "support"). 24 hours from the first motion is normally the fastest a case will close. The Clerks will close the case either immediately, or 24 hours after the fourth net support vote has been cast, depending on whether the arbitrators have voted unanimously on the entirety of the case's proposed decision or not.
- Support
-
- Oppose
-
- Comment
-